Text comments

The Draft plan presents or makes reference to the current Kitsap County classification system on pp. 33-34 (community recreational complexes; heritage park, legacy parks; open space and greenbelts; partnership parks; special use parks; and waterway/waterfront parks, the Washington State Parks Classification System (p. 34), and a system used by municipalities (pp. 140-141 of the Appendix). It also makes reference to the Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) classification system (p. 34) but does not explain what it is.

Doing an online search, we find that the Washington State Parks classification system has these six classifications: Recreation Areas, Resource Recreation Areas, Natural Areas, Heritage Areas, Natural Forest Areas and Natural Area Preserves. Earlier (p. 33) the draft plan says that the current Kitsap County classification system could be adapted to the Washington State Parks system but how that is being done is not explained. On pp. 34-35 it then says the plan is using a combination of the RCO and Washington State Parks framework. It then lists the following categories: Nature Parks, Waterfront Parks, Community Parks, Neighborhood Parks Mini-Parks, Regional Parks, Special Use Parks. It does not explain the process by which this newly proposed classification system was developed. Who was involved? What criteria were used? What additional classifications should be included. For example, none of these systems include public gardens which are sometimes included as a type of park classification system.

Long term suggestion

The criteria for the classification system, who was involved, and what contextual information is taken into account need to be clearly articulated.  A classification that has community and neighboring resident participation recognizes the need for the parks and their appropriate use. Diverse stakeholder participation helps shape the recreational use impact and then supports the park’s design and maintenance needs. A classification for a park whose original intent is for nature-based recreation and habitat conservation is a much different classification than a park that offers playgrounds and ballfields in an Urban Growth Area.

We recommend the establishment of a working group with, for example, members of the tribes; people with a broad range of knowledge about park classification systems; users, stewards, and staff of the current Kitsap County parks; designers of other public and private parks and gardens in the County; a range of stakeholders; and more. A clear and forward-thinking parks classification system that has transparently been developed is needed before any parks are classified. A classification system takes considerable time to develop. The classification system needs to be congruent with the land use decision of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan which emphasizes increasing density in UGAs, with expected climate conditions for the next 20 years, and the needs of the population of Kitsap County. These are a few initial ideas about how such a group would be established. The work group needs to be facilitated by a skilled and independent professional facilitator.

Once a well-developed, publicly reviewed and accepted classification system has been established, then it is time to move forward on classify existing parks. Table 2-12, pp. 37-39 is not appropriate to include in this PROS plan. Much more work needs to be done before presenting the long-term reclassification of specific parks.

Short term suggestion

We recognize that the above suggestion is going to take time. It represents the long view and the underlying policy orientation for Parks. We also recognize that in the meantime you need a classification system that can be used for grant applications especially through RCO. Therefore, we recommend that you adopt the full classification system and guidelines provided by the Washington State Park Classification System, as they are clear and well-written.

We propose a dual classification for PGFHP, incorporating a Recreation Area for the Ride Park to promote more active forms of recreation, while categorizing the rest of the PGFHP as a Nature or Natural Area to encourage passive recreation and better protect critical areas and wildlife habitats.

The State classification system utilizes the category of Natural Area, which we believe is more suitable than the county’s proposed Nature Park designation. Therefore, we recommend that the county adhere to the classification guidelines established by the Washington State Park Classification System. This can be presented as an interim classification system until the fully engaged strategy described earlier can be developed and implemented.